UN Environment Report Compromised by Fossil Fuel Politics, Alleges Top Scientist

A key UN report on the state of the global environment has been hijacked by the United States and other countries who were unwilling to go along with the scientific findings, the co-chair has told the BBC.

The Global Environment Outlook, the result of six years' work, connects climate change, nature loss and pollution to unsustainable consumption by people living in wealthy and emerging economies.

It warns of a dire future for millions unless there's a rapid move away from coal, oil and gas and fossil fuel subsidies.

But at a meeting with government representatives to agree the findings, the U.S. and allies said they could not go along with a summary of the report's conclusions.

As the scientists were unwilling to water down or change their findings, the report has now been published without the summary and without the support of governments, weakening its impact.

Researchers say the objections to this new report reflect similar concerns expressed by countries at the recent COP30 talks.

Issued every six or seven years, the Global Environment Outlook is a significant scientific analysis of the major threats to the planet.

Developed under the auspices of the UN, the normal practice for studies like this is to have the key conclusions and recommendations agreed word by word with governments and published as a summary for policymakers.

Compiled by nearly 300 scientists worldwide, the report argues that the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the energy we consume all involve the extraction of resources in a highly unsustainable manner.

To solve the connected issues of climate change, pollution, nature, and biodiversity loss, the report has many recommendations including a rapid move away from coal, oil, and gas and a massive reduction in subsidies for farming and fossil fuels.

However, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia strenuously opposed the strong measures advocated in the report, further complicating global environmental discussions.

Prof. Sir Robert Watson expressed his disappointment, stating, A small number of countries basically just hijacked the process, to be quite honest. He noted that the U.S. decided not to attend a critical meeting but later joined by teleconference to voice its dissent.

This dispute has raised concerns regarding the future credibility and effectiveness of international climate negotiations and the significance of global efforts to address the burgeoning climate crisis.